Tuesday, October 26, 2010

John Podhoretzwrites about the possible enormity of the coming GOP victory: "...Democrats are hoping for a thumpin', probably now expecting a batterin', fearing a slaughterin' -- and can't bear to contemplate an evisceratin'."

Can anyone feign surprise when the President of the United Statesencourages Latino voters to view some Americansas their "enemies"?

Love That Liberal Love Alert. I remember the idiot schoolteacher who I saw wearing a T-shirt proclaiming "Love is what separates us from the Republicans." I guess Joy Behar didn't get that memo (caution: nasty liberal language).

18 comments:

For the record, that ad is the kind of ad that the Boxer "Ma'am" ad puts to shame. There are plenty of right ways to nail ReidBama on the literally fatal consequences of illegal immigration in Arizona. But that's the totally wrong way.

HSAT, I wait with bated breath for NOW to unreservedly condemn such crass language from a woman about a woman, just like they did with Jerry Brown's aide and Meg Whitman....

"In 2003, US conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer coined the term 'Bush Derangement Syndrome' to describe the knee-jerk responses that many on the Left had towards then President George W. Bush. Anything Bush proposed was met with scepticism and conspiracy theories, and any problems in American society were sheeted home to him."

'The Spectator Australia', 15th October 2010 in an article defending Rupert Murdoch against claims of deciding who will be president in America and prime minister in Australia.

You have mentioned an article about the 'thumping' the democrats face.There were similar articles regarding the republicans during the last presidential campaign.

You identify MSM media bias. Similar accusations have been made against media such as Fox News.

You assert that obama is luring immigrants into hating Americans. People have drawn conclusions from statements made by politicians on both 'sides'.

You cite 'nasty liberal language'.

My point is not to disgaree with your point of view on any of these issues. My point, as I said, is that the current criticisms of obama sound a lot like the criticisms made of Bush when he was president.

The article I quoted used the term 'Bush Derangement Syndrome' in regard to how he was seen by the left.Could the terms of ridicule used against the 'Tea Party' be a similar thing in regard to how obama is seen by the right?

I work a fair amount in Wisconsin and unfortunately get exposed to their political ads. If you want an idea of how bad it hopefully will be for Dems, in liberal Wisconsin, uber-liberal Feingold is campaigning as a conservative, and I can't recall any of his ads that identify him as a Democrat. I heard one of his ads that portrayed him as a tax-cutting deficit hawk who favors strong national defense, securing the borders, and limiting government intrusion into our lives. At first I thought it was an ad for Paul Ryan or something.

I know it's traditional for Dems and RINOs to miraculously shift to the right for a few months every couple Novembers, but this year it's absurd. You have Biden out there promising that they've learned their lesson, but apparently he didn't get the memo that guys like Feingold didn't need to learn anything, because he's been to the right of Reagan all along.

The really sad thing is that if people go and look at the history of progressives, they will realize that most seniors have been eradicated by them. And the same goes for children that are not in the "right" circumstances (i.e. born to the right people). Just go look at the beginnings of Planned Parenthood and who they were targeting (not that much has changed).

I haven't decided if I can stand watching the Behar clip as the cipls I've seen of her on Wretched make me want to a) hurl or b) throw a pillow at the wall really, really hard.

If you're trying to point out a contradiction or hypocrisy on the part of Conservatives, then you haven't made a case for it.

Being angry at a president for national ills is normal and natural for voters. Nothing has "changed" at all. The issue is whether or not that anger is based on facts or fiction.

Whether the "derangement" against Bush in the past and Obama right now is based on facts or fiction is another ball of wax. The point that needs to be stressed to you at the moment is that mere anger and frustration proves nothing in regards to a possible contradiction/hypocrisy on the part of the voters.

I was doing nothing of the sort Halcyon. All I was doing was pointing out that the same 'scenario' - strident critics, allegations of media bias, being blamed for all ills, conspiracy theories - is now being played out against Obama like it was previously played out against Bush.

Not so fast or easy, Rupert. To me, it just smells like the laziest dodge to get out of thinking in the book, right next to "that's your opinion."

Or are you saying that Podhoretz didn't write about the possible enormity of the coming GOP victory, or that that article doesn't show blatant MSM bias for Feingold, or that Obama didn't encourage Latino voters to view some Americans as their "enemies," or that Joy Behar didn't say what she said?

If you aren't able to connect what you said with the specifics of this post and support your connection, then your remark is totally off-topic.